4 ms·

Can we please calm down until at least one app on my machine besides the browser supports this?

Spivak 6y ago
But these formats are basically for browsers. I don't think Google cares one iota if they gain traction anywhere else because having them used on Google Services and Chrome is enough to reap the benefits of x% less traffic.
- falcolas 6y ago
  Is it just me, or has Google become a corporate-AI version of a paperclip optimizer, but for money? Perhaps it's not just Google, but this kind of "F[orget] the user" behavior is pretty concerning.
  - Spivak 6y ago
    I don't get your last point. This is one of those situations where it's a win for Google, users, and any site that also adopts the format. Google and sites that use it use fewer resources delivering traffic and sites get faster and smaller for users. Sure you could rant about all kinds of different web bloat but a completely transparent improvement is always a good thing.
    - falcolas 6y ago
      I don't agree that it's a win for users, because the format can only be used in the browser. There may be work-arounds, but forcing users to work around a largely unsupported image format is hostile to users.
      - Spivak 6y ago
        I mean it’s not only supported in browsers just the motivation for its existence is browsers. It will likely get the same level of support as WebP which is “not ubiquitous but well supported.” If you are someone who looks at image formats and says “wow this is really wasteful, we could be doing so much better” then your constraints make it a no win. Nobody adopts formats that aren’t supported, and nobody supports formats that aren’t used. And users are just stuck with waste forever. Somebody has to break the ice and Google using the format in a non-disruptive setting of Google talking to Google is pretty conservative. If it was Adobe’s new format they would bootstrap it by making it the default in Photoshop or Apple would make it the default format for the camera or something.

But these formats are basically for browsers. I don't think Google cares one iota if they gain traction anywhere else because having them used on Google Services and Chrome is enough to reap the benefits of x% less traffic.

falcolas 6y ago
Is it just me, or has Google become a corporate-AI version of a paperclip optimizer, but for money? Perhaps it's not just Google, but this kind of "F[orget] the user" behavior is pretty concerning.
- Spivak 6y ago
  I don't get your last point. This is one of those situations where it's a win for Google, users, and any site that also adopts the format. Google and sites that use it use fewer resources delivering traffic and sites get faster and smaller for users. Sure you could rant about all kinds of different web bloat but a completely transparent improvement is always a good thing.
  - falcolas 6y ago
    I don't agree that it's a win for users, because the format can only be used in the browser. There may be work-arounds, but forcing users to work around a largely unsupported image format is hostile to users.
    - Spivak 6y ago
      I mean it’s not only supported in browsers just the motivation for its existence is browsers. It will likely get the same level of support as WebP which is “not ubiquitous but well supported.” If you are someone who looks at image formats and says “wow this is really wasteful, we could be doing so much better” then your constraints make it a no win. Nobody adopts formats that aren’t supported, and nobody supports formats that aren’t used. And users are just stuck with waste forever. Somebody has to break the ice and Google using the format in a non-disruptive setting of Google talking to Google is pretty conservative. If it was Adobe’s new format they would bootstrap it by making it the default in Photoshop or Apple would make it the default format for the camera or something.